Amendment No 1 removes the examples of electronic means, the intention being to insert a definition of "electronic means" in subclause (4). It was considered unclear whether the noted examples in subclause (1) also applied to subclause (2). A specific definition of "electronic means" would make this clear. As the intention is to have the term "electronic means" applied to the whole clause, I have agreed to this change to provide clarity. That definition is provided in my amendment No 3.

It was considered that the words "or made available" could make it possible for the bill to apply to Internet service providers, who could not possibly know what was being sent to whom. It was suggested that this phrase should be removed so the subclause applied to those who actually sent the material. I think this issue was raised by Mr Wood. It was not my intention for the bill to apply to Internet service providers, a point that I believe the bill made clear enough, but I am happy to make this point clear by providing a defence for Internet service providers who had no knowledge of the offence.

The second defence provided for in amendment No 2, one I have agreed to, includes people who have sent offensive material to a person whom they reasonably thought was at least 16 years old. As members will see, I have retained the concept of an offence being committed, despite the underage person having consented to receiving the material. I think this is an important concept to retain in the bill. It will be difficult to prove in a prosecution what the receiving person and the sender thought had been consented to being sent and to whom.